From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: nfsd stuckage Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:22:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20090107172238.GA15127@infradead.org> References: <20090106145612.d4d9948d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106230244.GB13785@fieldses.org> <20090106230356.GA31520@lst.de> <20090106230551.GC13785@fieldses.org> <20090107001501.GH13785@fieldses.org> <20090106162328.1b4511a6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090107002816.GL13785@fieldses.org> <20090107074256.GA5102@infradead.org> <20090107165639.GA28489@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , hch@lst.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, snakebyte@gmx.de To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:56833 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752775AbZAGRWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:22:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090107165639.GA28489@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 11:56:39AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > OK. Mind if we just revert the whole commit for now? With the > double-lock regression is still there for ecryptfs exports, then I'd > rather do a simple revert of the whole patch and not try to pick out > just the fs/nfsd/vfs.c part. Umm, exporting ecryptfs would previously take the lower i_mutex in the ecryptfs fsync method and now does in vfs_fsync, there should be no changed in behaviour.